Author
Topic: Hilarious Mailbag Pattern (Read 24417 times)

Hguols, you're not getting it. And dictionary definitions don't help here, because they're not nuanced enough.

As Ashe and Seppuku said, agnosticism and atheism are on a x and y axis, giving four possible basic positions.

A gnostic atheist declares that there are no gods. That's a claim for which there is no proof, and can therefore be described as a belief. Only 4-5% (IIRC - we had a poll) of atheists on this forum subscribe to this position.

Absence of medical treatment is not a form of treatment - it is the antithesis of treatment.

Absence of belief is not a form of belief - it is the antithesis of belief.

Perhaps you should have a look at the wiki articles on Agnostic Atheism and Agnostic Theism, which back up what we're saying here; they explain it all pretty well. After doing so, I'd be interested to know how you qualify your theism; are you gnostic, or agnostic?

If you wanted to just play the adjective route, we're all agnostic. Being rigorously honest with ourselves, none of the theists really know there is a God, just like none of the atheists know there isn't a God. If you wanted to get super general with the adjective (like Ashe did with the "I'm a blue") then every human being that has ever lived is agnostic, at least in regards to something.

Of course! I absolutely agree! We're all agnostic in regards to something, whether we believe or not.

Quote

I guess the reason I'm getting some mixed messages is because I've heard statements "There is no God", "God is imaginary" and "God doesn't exist", etc. which I think are a belief, and as a drawn conclusion formed statement, need to hold true to the burden of proof. Here are some definitions from different sources, sans the examples and bolded why I still disagree with the belief/disbelief argument.

I see your point, and this is where it gets kinda hairy.Some of us here do believe there is absolutely no God or that God is imaginary or that God doesn't exist. I'm not talented enough to articulate the nuance in this case, but those statements aren't always a full claim. Not when they're responding to someone who says there is a god.

Then there's the case of stating, "There's no God" when it's meant as a colloquial statement. I've said, "God is imaginary" to people. But the way I say "God is imaginary" is the same way I say "Unicorns don't exist." I'm technically agnostic to whether unicorns exist, but I'd find it silly to split hairs over whether I can "fully know" that unicorns don't exist. Honestly, there has to be a point somewhere when you can only depend upon the natural senses you have and the scientific knowledge you have to come to a working conclusion to state with as much certainty as is possible that something either is or is not.

We can get into all the definitions that exist and the word headaches that come along with it, but to start focusing on these very fine details would be to miss the big picture - the theist made the first claim. The default position is "Uh-uh" until shown otherwise, especially in extraordinary cases such as, "A god sent himself as his son to be sacrificed to himself to appease himself for the rules he made." And I think someone is entitled to effectively rule that god out with certainty if they can show how that god couldn't logically exist (such as pointing out the contradictory claims of the nature of the Christian god). While I may be agnostic to hundreds of thousands of gods I don't even know exist, there are gods I can be a strong atheist towards. Whether "uh-uh" becomes its own claim at that point doesn't matter; I'm prepared to state, "Because it contradicts itself at X, Y, Z." If you retort that the god is special and defies logic in the case of X, Y, Z, you've only made a new claim, and I'm back at, "Uh-uh," which isn't a claim.

Logged

2 miles!"All men(humans )were demon possed and were planning to attack God. Just like if you talk back to your parents." - Failbag quote

I guess the reason I'm getting some mixed messages is because I've heard statements "There is no God", "God is imaginary" and "God doesn't exist", etc. which I think are a belief, and as a drawn conclusion formed statement, need to hold true to the burden of proof. Here are some definitions from different sources, sans the examples and bolded why I still disagree with the belief/disbelief argument.

Some definitions of belief:(Wikipedia)Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.

(dictionary.com) Belief–noun1.something believed; an opinion or conviction.2.confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.3.confidence; faith; trust.4.a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith.

(Webster) Belief, see BelieveIntransitive verb1a : to have a firm religious faith b: to accept something as true, genuine, or real 2: to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something3: to hold an opinion : thinktransitive verb1a : to consider to be true or honest b: to accept the word or evidence of2: to hold as an opinion : suppose

Maybe this is where things get complicated. In the religious, credence, faith-based definitions of the word, there's nothing even remotely atheistic about that. In the most general sense of the definition of the word "believe", you all have/hold an opinion on the existence of God.

You are misusing the word "belief" by referencing a particular definition that doesn't apply in the context of religion. Notice that some of the other definitions DO apply to religious faith.

If I say "I believe it is going to rain today" it doesn't mean I have a "firm religious faith" that it will rain. That definition would be wildly out of context. A definition that does fit would be "to hold as an opinion : suppose."

If you are going to use the dictionary to try to attack something then you need to know how words with multiple definitions works. You don't just snag out any definition and throw it in people's faces. You choose the definition that fits the context.

Logged

So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence. --Bertrand Russell

Also, your carrying on about the word "agnostic" is totally pointless. The group you are attacking is what we would call "gnostic atheists," but there aren't too many of those around. Using the word as an adjective with the "atheist" or "theist" as nouns is simply much more concise and accurate.

Logged

So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence. --Bertrand Russell

Absence of medical treatment is not a form of treatment - it is the antithesis of treatment.

Absence of belief is not a form of belief - it is the antithesis of belief.

Those statements are correct. I've seen it, and have seen that all along. I disagree and think there's more to it than just what those statements conclude.My response to Agamemnon will hopefully answer your question as well.

Agamemnon, you said the definition chosen needs to fit the context. I don't have a firm religious faith that it will rain.... makes a lot of sense. I agree. However, whether it's a firm religious faith, or an opinion

- it's still a belief / it's still believing!

If you "hold an opinion; suppose", or "hold an opinion; think", you're fitting the context of belief / believing! You're saying I'm picking the wrong definition, I'm saying you're leaving out a correct one. Dictionary entries have specific definitions and general ones. Just because it doesn't apply to a specific definition, doesn't mean it couldn't apply to the general one.

The religious one is rather specific, and if it doesn't apply, it doesn't fly. The "Opinion" one is very general.

(wikipedia) An opinion is a subjective statement or thought about an issue or topic, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts.

(Webster.com) Opinion1a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b : approval, esteem2a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b : a generally held view3a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based

Just what it says, if you "hold an opinion" (have a view, impression, judgment or appraisal), you believe.

You're saying as an atheist, there is no belief.... meaning you do not have a religious faith. That is very true. I agree.Leaving religion and lack thereof aside, it's just as proper of a definition to say "You as an atheist, believe there is no God." meaning you do hold an opinion, conviction, etc. to come to that conclusion.

Here's an example: We're on an art forum that discusses color theory, and I make the random statement "I like to eat oranges." and you say, "That's impossible, you can't eat a color." Definitions come out, and someone could technically use context to make the point.

.....but really, technically, if its defined, it is what it is.

The only difference is "oranges" applies to a specific definition, a fruit, but "color" is not a general definition - it's another specific one.In regards to the belief definition, a "religious faith in God" is "an opinion held".

Logged

“The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.” ~ Carl Sagan

Agamemnon, you said the definition chosen needs to fit the context. I don't have a firm religious faith that it will rain.... makes a lot of sense. I agree. However, whether it's a firm religious faith, or an opinion

- it's still a belief / it's still believing!

Sorry, both definitions are not applicable. It is either religious conviction or an opinion.

The religious one is rather specific, and if it doesn't apply, it doesn't fly. The "Opinion" one is very general.

That is correct. So in the case of a religious debate you are going to use the specifically religious definition of the word unless context dictates otherwise. It is very simple, I don't know why we are even talking about it.

You're saying as an atheist, there is no belief.... meaning you do not have a religious faith. That is very true. I agree.Leaving religion and lack thereof aside, it's just as proper of a definition to say "You as an atheist, believe there is no God." meaning you do hold an opinion, conviction, etc. to come to that conclusion.

By adding the words "atheist" and "God" to the statement means that the "religious belief" usage of the word applies, not the "opinion" usage.

Making a statement "I believe it is going to rain" is nothing like "I believe Jesus Christ is our lord and savior" By making the context religious, you excluded the nonreligious contexts of the word.

Here's an example: We're on an art forum that discusses color theory, and I make the random statement "I like to eat oranges." and you say, "That's impossible, you can't eat a color." Definitions come out, and someone could technically use context to make the point.

.....but really, technically, if its defined, it is what it is.

Really, technically, if it has multiple definitions then you will want to use the most correct definition for the context in which the word is used, otherwise you have communications issues, like the example you gave above. If both definitions of "orange" were freely interchangeable, as you are trying to do with "belief," then we would have big problems trying to communicate.

Logged

So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence. --Bertrand Russell

Right. You seem to think that your belief in a deity is as valid as my belief that there are no gods, never have been and never will be.

The truth of the matter is that you have absolutely nothing to support your side. On my side, I have read the claims for many gods and found them completely vacuous and without merit.

There are as many facile creation myths as there are religions (probably more). There are tales of the supernatural galore and no one believes that they are other than a story. The absence of any evidence here indicates the evidence of absence as far as gods are concerned.

Deluded men, making money from the gullible, have for millennia been seeking something that will confirm their lucrative position of power - every one of them has failed.

Atheists (and members of countless break-away sects) have, for the same length of time, said, "Put up or shut up." Don't you think that by now someone would have come up with something?

So, back to my signature. "All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others. - Douglas Adams"

You must see that if I suggest the existence of a winged leopard that changes into a lamppost, it simply has no evidence and we can take it that it is absent.

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Really, technically, if it has multiple definitions then you will want to use the most correct definition for the context in which the word is used, otherwise you have communications issues, like the example you gave above. If both definitions of "orange" were freely interchangeable, as you are trying to do with "belief," then we would have big problems trying to communicate.

Obviously we're already having this.Same with people here insisting the Agnostic term as always being an adjective, while there are clearly noun definitions and uses....

« Last Edit: January 02, 2011, 06:01:52 PM by Hguols »

Logged

“The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.” ~ Carl Sagan

If it is an opinion held without the firm religious faith, it's still a belief.

It is a belief, but it is not a religious belief. The two terms are not the same. They are separated by context. If they were not separated by context then your definitions would look different. There would NOT be multiple definitions and your "religious faith" definition would also include "opinion held." There would not be separate definitions as there would be no need for separate definitions.

Really, technically, if it has multiple definitions then you will want to use the most correct definition for the context in which the word is used, otherwise you have communications issues, like the example you gave above. If both definitions of "orange" were freely interchangeable, as you are trying to do with "belief," then we would have big problems trying to communicate.

Obviously we're already having this.

Only because you insist on equivocating. You want to try to force your out-of-context definitions on us so that you can try to force the burden of proof on us, but that's not the way logic and reason work.

Same with people here insisting the Agnostic term as always being an adjective, while there are clearly noun definitions and uses....

There are noun usages, but f I say I am an "agnostic atheist" then I'm using the adjective variant of "agnostic," not the noun.

If I tell you I am an "atheist," without the "agnostic" adjective, it is simply because it is expedient. If you want more detail about what I think on the subject of gods then you are going to have to ask for more detail. Simply relying on an expedient label is bigoted, unfair and dishonest.

Only because you insist on equivocating. You want to try to force your out-of-context definitions on us so that you can try to force the burden of proof on us, but that's not the way logic and reason work.

You want to stay out of definitions just so you don't have to answer your own reasoning. That's not right.

That's what I'm talking about. Lets leave the "but" alone for a minute. Do you think that someone could be an agnostic in regards to religion/spirituality and not be a theist or an atheist?

Probably not, but that doesn't fix your definitions issue. The adjective variant is exists, whether you like it or not. The reason we have the adjective variant of the word is to allow us to give more information about the noun. If I say I am an "agnostic" atheist then you can't tell me that I'm actually a "gnostic" atheist, which is what you want to do here. That would be a lie that you tell yourself to make you feel better about your own beliefs. You might believe it, but I won't.

You will have created a strawman of my position on the issue of god(s). And that's what this is all about--your creating strawmen to shift the burden of proof.

I suppose the argument can be made that some atheists can hold beliefs within their atheism, but the atheism is not the belief. Atheism is in its very basics, a lack of something. We've gone over this in another example I've used - you're an atheist in terms of gods you haven't even considered existed yet. You don't deny those gods that you haven't considered existed yet, but you lack a belief in them. That's your atheism, and that's not a belief. It's a lack of one.

Logged

2 miles!"All men(humans )were demon possed and were planning to attack God. Just like if you talk back to your parents." - Failbag quote

When you use the word "atheism" you are discussing a subject that is about religion. It falls within a category of discussions pertaining to religion.

Why does it fall into a category pertaining to religion when its not religious itself? If it doesn't matter who put it in that category, why does it matter if its really a belief or not? (unless you're trying to dodge the burden of proof)

« Last Edit: January 02, 2011, 08:41:11 PM by Hguols »

Logged

“The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.” ~ Carl Sagan

Why does it fall into a category pertaining to religion when its not religious itself? If it doesn't matter who put it in that category, why does it matter if its really a belief or not?

Did you somehow miss my post on Russell's Teapot?

However, I will give you one caveat. If you wish to categorize atheism as a 'not belief system' belief then go right ahead. It is a generic catch-all, unlike specific belief systems, such as say, Christianity vs Hinduism vs Taoism vs Islam vs Judaism and so on. You are presumably 'pro' one of these and 'anti' the others, correct? Well we're anti all of them until someone presents positive evidence showing that they should be considered. To be other than a skeptic is sheerest nonsense.

Any argument that you would make that disqualifies the other religions must logically be applied to your own as well.Are you willing to do that?

Logged

Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Because when a christian asks "Do you believe in God?", that means they're a theist, and they're using believe in the religious sense.

What if you don't know the person asking is a Christian, theist, or even an atheist?What if I ask you "Do you believe in God?" and you know I mean the general definition of believe? .....better yet.....What if I ask you, "Do you have an opinion on God?" or "Do you have an opinion on the existence of God?".

It seems to me, answering yes would mean you qualify for a belief definition.Answering no, would be deceiving.... because you do have a personal view, impression, etc. of God. (that He doesn't exist) You're not impartial to the God concept - you have a view.

If someone asked me, "Do you have an opinion on the existence of unicorns?", I would say "Yes. I don't believe they exist." .....and I would be comfortable that my belief on that issue is that I don't believe in unicorns.____________________

I'll get to the barron's, deism and teapots after I get to the bottom of this "belief" thing once and for all.

« Last Edit: January 02, 2011, 09:20:27 PM by Hguols »

Logged

“The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.” ~ Carl Sagan

Can they exist (unicorns),as you say they do not exist,does not mean they dont. Can you see the paradox of your arguement. Unicorns may exist,but there fails to be proof that they do you have to use faith'

Bigfoot,Yeti,Loch Ness monster,Boogie man....the list is endless

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)